The Charter of the United Nations declares that it “is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.” This in itself is a laudatory declaration. However, we are faced with a different reality at the intersection of human nature and international politics, the reality of inequality which is fundamental to it. The notion of equality embedded in the Charter misses a very significant fact of human nature, the obsession of world leaders with the notion of status which they strive to attain and feel entitled to enjoy in the day-to-day relationship between nations of the world.
History is replete with examples of countries that have gone to war merely for some injury to or advancement of status; material gain is often not the drive. The Falklands crisis arose out of Britain’s abiding sense of self-esteem which, it was contended, would receive a blow if the colony was not salvaged. Russia too wanted no blemish on its status and consequently took the preemptive measure of an impulsive war with Germany. Nothing would refrain her from the military response.
As the Tsar vehemently declared, the need of the hour was to “protect the honour, dignity and safety of Russia and its position among the Great Powers.” Germany had indeed touched a raw nerve of the Russian leadership spurring it to an armed response without maintaining the passive role of a mere bystander to the assault on Serbia by Austria-Hungary.
Personal vanities
The historical observation also specifies that the defence of status may often supersede any military intervention; guarding of the personal vanity of the leader could be as vital to the status of the nation. The three leaders, Harry Truman, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, could not come to an amicable understanding of who would enter first at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. Amusingly, to avoid a stalemate, all three agreed to enter simultaneously from three different entrances. In another such case of misplaced pride, Vladimir Putin snubbed the invitation to the G8 summit at Camp David in 2012 on the grounds that it would be humiliating for him to depart for Moscow after the meeting, while the other leaders fly off to the NATO summit in Chicago where he is not an invitee.
It has to be borne in mind that the eminence of a nation does not depend just on its military strength but also on its power to sway the decision-making of other nations over which it enjoys hegemonic influence. This capability serves to give the leadership a sense of self-importance, security and economic advantage in matters of determining the foreign policy and international aftermaths in questions relating to military dominance and trade relations. The dominating conduct of a nation is “as important as raw aggression in affecting the likelihood of international conflict.” The maintenance of status on the world stage is one of the main anxieties of countries like Russia, Norway, India, France and in particular, China. It is “a key factor in nuclear proliferation, the rise of China and Russia, conflict in Syria, and a multitude of other issues.”
Jonathan Renshon explores this crucial issue in international politics marked by the unremitting concerns of hierarchy and conflict, which he surmises is based on the notion that leaders who govern a state and advance its interest and international standing do so by attaining superior status. This, according to him is the core human trait that is singularly relevant to the area of international engagement driving the world towards, in the words of Steven Pinker, “the course of war and peace.” Theoretically innovative and with a wide marshalling of historical data, Renshon has indeed substantiated Shakespeare’s delineation of a nation which is “jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,/ Seeking the bubble reputation/ Even in the cannon’s mouth.” Status, prestige and veneration are important human stimuli. The higher the status, the louder the applause, along with the blessing of “significant and mental health benefits as well as greater access to younger and healthier mates.” This could very well be the law of nature.
Anarchic nature
It can be concluded that the study emphasises the general anarchic nature of the international system but one which is “permeated with patterns of dominance and subordination”, deeply hierarchical and grounded in economic and military supremacy as well as on the moral authority that a nation revels in. However, appetite for stature supersedes yearning for security or wealth. Interestingly, prestige has been the “driving motive in 62 per cent of the wars fought since 1948.” In the works of Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thucydides, status, glory and recognition matters, a fact Renshon explains.
The author uses network analysis, statistical interpretations, experiments and case studies to show the implication of status as a key motivation for leaders in their personal psychological preoccupations as well as in their public and international dealings. Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to arrive at a set pattern of the degrees of concern as well as the complex desire for prestige in a world of complex international milieu. What really triggers the apprehensions of an individual in decision-making could be one important insight into the dangers of an inherently relative and contextual fixation with the acquisition of status.
Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics; Jonathan Renshon, Princeton University Press, ₹1,399.